BREGZIT (GE 2019) - Labour - the average household spends £2k p/a on rail season tickets.

135671329

Posts

  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,815
    pblakeney wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.
    Unfortunately, I believe that the bit in bold above is not true.
    The EU in 10 years will be very different to the EU today in my opinion.
    It is only an opinion, but it is all I have to go on without firm, and fixed agreements. Which we won't get.

    We are voting in a leap of faith, either way.

    The world's gonna be different in 10 years?

    No sh!t sherlock.
    I know.
    Anyone thinking that they are voting for a status quo needs it pointing out though.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    You could say the same about anything you vote on where there is an option to keep current government/party.

    EU is going through a bit of an existential crisis and UK leaving would probably be fatal.

    As such there's a fair amount of flex it has to keep the UK in.

    EU leaders aren't hell bent on screwing the UK. Often there is method behind the ostensible madness.
  • DesB3rdDesB3rd Posts: 285
    As with any negotiation each party plays as hard as it can; every offer is a "final offer" and every moderation made today was a stonewalled aberration the day before.

    When Cameron first pitched the "negotiate today, referendum tomorrow" policy the immediate response from the EU was howls of "not one inch, the EU is perfect as-is, ever closer union forever!" Fast-forward to 2015 and there is all manner of administrative reform being pitched and the mood music is increasingly conciliatory - who knows what'll be on the table in a couple of years.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Some people suggest that the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe for the past decades and that a common foreign policy is the way forward. It is hard to argue that it has not helped to do so, in some way. To what extent is moot.
    The EU is just as capable of making mistakes as any individual state. In its headlong rush to recruit new members from the old Soviet bloc, it has spread eastwards, encompassing, the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria etc. It has courted Ukraine, with disastrous results. The pro Russian regime was kicked out by a faction with an eye on EU membership, leading to today's sorry situation.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    ballysmate wrote:
    Some people suggest that the EU has been responsible for peace in Europe for the past decades and that a common foreign policy is the way forward. It is hard to argue that it has not helped to do so, in some way. To what extent is moot.
    The EU is just as capable of making mistakes as any individual state. In its headlong rush to recruit new members from the old Soviet bloc, it has spread eastwards, encompassing, the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria etc. It has courted Ukraine, with disastrous results. The pro Russian regime was kicked out by a faction with an eye on EU membership, leading to today's sorry situation.

    you may be right about the Ukraine situation and EU but equally (and far more "threatening" to Russia) it is NATO's move to spread east and the USA trying to put anti missile systems in ex soviet bloc countries.
    Putin represents everything that was wrong with the soviet union, he may well have stirred up trouble in the Ukraine in any case, the pro EU vote was the excuse he took, he would have found another one as his target was always the ports in the Crimea.
    Europe has a habit through out the ages to find excuses for war, since the EEC there has been no war, the reasons are many and varied but should the UK leave and take control of its borders, forcing back or stopping migrants from the channel, its easy to see that relations with France would go down hill rapidly, as could tensions over Gibraltar, not too mention fishing, at the moment we ve forum for these issues, outside, who knows?
    But regardless of all of this, the uncontrolled immigration into this country, both from eu and non eu people needs to be curbed, net 300k + per year is unsustainable.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,244
    mamba80 wrote:
    But regardless of all of this, the uncontrolled immigration into this country, both from eu and non eu people needs to be curbed, net 300k + per year is unsustainable.
    Agree with you on that point. The problem here is that free movement of people is one of the EU 'red lines' but the pressure on the UK population is not going to go away. I would prefer that we can agree an exemption to allow control over the numbers and stay in, but not sure if the EU would ever agree to it given the precedent it sets.

    On a related point, I heard on the radio this morning that Labour have dropped their opposition to the EU referendum.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,279
    Free movement of people within the EU is non negotiable, not worth trying to table, is a fundamental tenet. And all those UK ex-pats in the Dordogne, the Costa del Sol, the Algarve and so on benefit.

    What IS entirely under the control of the UK government is what happens when an EU citizen arrives in the UK.

    There was an interview on Friday's Today programme on Radio 4, from 0710 if you want to relisten on iPlayer, with a German ex EU Commissioner Gunther Verheugen who set out some Facts. Yip, facts. Worth a listen.

    He used the German example. If someone arrives in Germany he/she cannot stay as long as they wish. They must guarantee they can care for themselves, otherwise they have to prove they have a job. If they do not have a job, they do not get the right of residence, and they have to leave.

    The UK can do the same. And I would posit that would be popular with majority of UK citizens.

    So what's the problem? Oh yeah, UK government needs to man up and stop hiding behind the "Brussels won't let us" smokescreen.
  • cc78cc78 Posts: 599
    orraloon wrote:
    Free movement of people within the EU is non negotiable, not worth trying to table, is a fundamental tenet. And all those UK ex-pats in the Dordogne, the Costa del Sol, the Algarve and so on benefit.

    What IS entirely under the control of the UK government is what happens when an EU citizen arrives in the UK.

    There was an interview on Friday's Today programme on Radio 4, from 0710 if you want to relisten on iPlayer, with a German ex EU Commissioner Gunther Verheugen who set out some Facts. Yip, facts. Worth a listen.

    He used the German example. If someone arrives in Germany he/she cannot stay as long as they wish. They must guarantee they can care for themselves, otherwise they have to prove they have a job. If they do not have a job, they do not get the right of residence, and they have to leave.

    The UK can do the same. And I would posit that would be popular with majority of UK citizens.

    So what's the problem? Oh yeah, UK government needs to man up and stop hiding behind the "Brussels won't let us" smokescreen.

    The facts are all here:
    http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/re ... dex_en.htm

    The German example above is correct, moreover EU citizens moving to Germany have to register their presence in the country; the UK could also make this a requirement but it has chosen not to.

    A recent ECJ ruling upheld the German position that it does not have to pay benefits to EU migrants who have never worked in Germany:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/n ... u-migrants

    As you say, from all this we can draw the conclusion there are a lot of steps that the UK government could take that are already permitted within existing EU regulations that would meet with the approval of those in the UK who are currently voicing their unhappiness with the status quo.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,244
    orraloon wrote:
    Free movement of people within the EU is non negotiable, not worth trying to table, is a fundamental tenet. And all those UK ex-pats in the Dordogne, the Costa del Sol, the Algarve and so on benefit.

    What IS entirely under the control of the UK government is what happens when an EU citizen arrives in the UK.

    There was an interview on Friday's Today programme on Radio 4, from 0710 if you want to relisten on iPlayer, with a German ex EU Commissioner Gunther Verheugen who set out some Facts. Yip, facts. Worth a listen.

    He used the German example. If someone arrives in Germany he/she cannot stay as long as they wish. They must guarantee they can care for themselves, otherwise they have to prove they have a job. If they do not have a job, they do not get the right of residence, and they have to leave.

    The UK can do the same. And I would posit that would be popular with majority of UK citizens.

    So what's the problem? Oh yeah, UK government needs to man up and stop hiding behind the "Brussels won't let us" smokescreen.
    That's a reasonable alternative, although clearly part of the problem is that it is often not so easy to remove people who have outstayed their welcome - as we have already seen.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,815
    I had a thought this morning.
    Referendums usually have both sides arguing their point of view.
    Who is going to debate for the Out campaign?
    It won't be the Tories.
    Nor Labour.
    Or SNP, Liberals, Greens, etc, etc

    So. Are we going to get one UKIP MP arguing to pull out whilst everyone else argues to stay in?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • taon24taon24 Posts: 185
    It is only in exceptional cases that EU migrants can be asked to leave, not anyone who has failed to find a job.
    The UK could alter its benefit rules, this doesn't require EU negotiation and I don't really understand why the government has not tightened up on this.
    Finally everyone states that we cannot cope with further immigration, but apart from the difficulty of building new houses, which is a whole separante issue, I can see no evidence for this. We do have a high population density, but why does it need to be prevented from getting higher?
    We do have problems with public services, but they are not caused by immigration, and more taxpayers helps spread the burden of paying for them.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    taon24 wrote:
    Interestingly I find myself agreeing with more of Ballysmate's considerations than I thought.
    However I do not believe that I am voting for an irretrievable union. Much like the SNP view of the Scots in the latest referendum, if there was a significant change (especially significant changes to political, monetary or military) I would want the relationship to be relooked at, and a further referendum at least considered by the politicians. I am just voting to maintain the status quo for the forseeable future.

    I think it is difficult to predict how you will be treated in future if you leave. That is the biggest disadvantage - the unknown. I don't see why it will be necessarily be favourable, if you reject other members of your community you might expect some bad feelings.
    I don't think the vote is in favour of joining the euro - I'd hope for a further referendum.
    Militarily we are already enmeshed in a complex alliance with a high degree of interdependence of our armed forces. I'm not sure a vote either way changes that.
    I agree that foreign policy of the EU may not always be in the best interest of the UK, but that is the situation at the moment, and I don't see it suddenly improving greatly if we leave.

    In = status quo, which while not perfect is not awful.
    Out = unknown.


    People may think they are voting for the status quo, but the situation is already moving.
    France and Germany are planning closer political ties without any change to Lisbon Treaty. This reinforces my fears that the terms of the referendum will be irrelevant, as the terms of our membership can be altered without consultation. I don't think there will be further referenda held

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... id-cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ealth.html

    In any referendum, I would like to be voting on the UK's line in the sand and give a mandate to our government that if this line is crossed, we pick up our ball and go home.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Free movement of people within the EU is non negotiable, not worth trying to table, is a fundamental tenet. And all those UK ex-pats in the Dordogne, the Costa del Sol, the Algarve and so on benefit.

    What IS entirely under the control of the UK government is what happens when an EU citizen arrives in the UK.

    There was an interview on Friday's Today programme on Radio 4, from 0710 if you want to relisten on iPlayer, with a German ex EU Commissioner Gunther Verheugen who set out some Facts. Yip, facts. Worth a listen.

    He used the German example. If someone arrives in Germany he/she cannot stay as long as they wish. They must guarantee they can care for themselves, otherwise they have to prove they have a job. If they do not have a job, they do not get the right of residence, and they have to leave.

    The UK can do the same. And I would posit that would be popular with majority of UK citizens.

    So what's the problem? Oh yeah, UK government needs to man up and stop hiding behind the "Brussels won't let us" smokescreen.
    That's a reasonable alternative, although clearly part of the problem is that it is often not so easy to remove people who have outstayed their welcome - as we have already seen.

    Its easy to do, just requires the will and the money to put in place the manpower but successive Governments have chosen not to do so, probably because of pressure from employers and indifference.
    Lets face it, over crowded schools and NHS services do not effect the ruling classes of any party.

    the EU referendum, seems more and more to be just a smoke screen to hide behind their failure to sort out the immigration crisis.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,279
    ballysmate wrote:
    In any referendum, I would like to be voting on the UK's line in the sand and give a mandate to our government that if this line is crossed, we pick up our ball and go home.

    What line in what sand?

    I would like to see specifics, not this continual vagueness on 'renegotiation', 'revised terms', 'red lines', 'sand', 'beaches', 'fight 'em'.... oops, getting carried away there, must unswivel my eye.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    orraloon wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    In any referendum, I would like to be voting on the UK's line in the sand and give a mandate to our government that if this line is crossed, we pick up our ball and go home.

    What line in what sand?

    I would like to see specifics, not this continual vagueness on 'renegotiation', 'revised terms', 'red lines', 'sand', 'beaches', 'fight 'em'.... oops, getting carried away there, must unswivel my eye.


    Yes we need specifics. Cameron pledged to negotiate the best deal for Britain and then put it before the British people. Any referendum is meaningless if the terms of our membership can be changed immediately afterwards without consultation and renegotiations of treaties. I don't like the idea of putting my cross against the YES box, when YES could potentially mean carte blanche for any future government.
  • taon24taon24 Posts: 185
    I'm unclear what the 'immigration crisis' is.
    The country gains a net benefit from the migrants. This increases government revenues that result from their economic activity and more than compensates for the services they use.
    Pressure on services is due to the government failing to invest more in these services. Fewer immigrants would mean that there are fewer tax payers to pay for those services.
    If you look at the attitude of a country like Germany, where many middle aged and older people remember the effects of the Berlin wall, it becomes very easy to understand why limiting the freedom of movement will be strongly resisted by parts of Europe.

    My understanding was that we would have a referendum on EU membership, which to my mind is: continue the current situation -v- leave the EU. It is not a free hand to merge us with Europe, but equally they will have to be able to take some decisions without holding a new referendum each time.
    Changing the referendum question seems a bit like the eurosceptics realising they are going to lose, because most people hope/fear/believe that the EU is the better option.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    taon24 wrote:
    I'm unclear what the 'immigration crisis' is.
    The country gains a net benefit from the migrants. This increases government revenues that result from their economic activity and more than compensates for the services they use.
    Pressure on services is due to the government failing to invest more in these services. Fewer immigrants would mean that there are fewer tax payers to pay for those services.

    With an extra 5m added to our population in the last 15years and net migration at a record 300k plus per year, you dont need a crystal ball to see that the pressure on schools roads, health services, housing is immense and is going only one way.
    Many professionals are leaving this country, adding to recruitment problems.
    We are where we are, and the investment in services has not happened, training teachers, doctors nurses and building infrastructure take years and we are way behind where we need to be, even without uncontrolled migration.
    To be a net tax contributor in this country, you need to earn about 35k, how many migrants earn this? the tax take in this country is nt raising in proportion to the rise in migrants either.
  • BelgianBeerGeekBelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,230
    Alex Salmond on R4 talking about a "quadlock" (not sure if spelling is right). Basically he is pushing for the right for one of the constituent countries making up the UK to have a veto should we vote out.

    I still think we won't get a referendum - the Conservatives will have torn themselves apart by then over this. Cameron will have to walk and any new leader will concentrate on winning election 2020. Remember folks, you heard it here first :wink:

    BTW, is it too soon for an "Election 2020" thread?
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • taon24taon24 Posts: 185
    mamba80 wrote:
    With an extra 5m added to our population in the last 15years and net migration at a record 300k plus per year, you dont need a crystal ball to see that the pressure on schools roads, health services, housing is immense and is going only one way.
    Many professionals are leaving this country, adding to recruitment problems.
    We are where we are, and the investment in services has not happened, training teachers, doctors nurses and building infrastructure take years and we are way behind where we need to be, even without uncontrolled migration.
    To be a net tax contributor in this country, you need to earn about 35k, how many migrants earn this? the tax take in this country is nt raising in proportion to the rise in migrants either.

    I cannot see how an increase in working and active population puts more pressure on schools, roads or health services, unless there isn't proportionate investment in those services. I agree it would be different if the people arriving were economically inactive, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
    Similarly the countries population is growing anyway, at least 40% of the 5 million population growth is due to more people being born than dying.
    The pressure is a lack of long term investment in the services, with imigration as a separate, minor, issue.
    In fact, the shortage of professionals is helped by immigration, especially in the health service.

    I'm not sure where the figure of 35k came from, but that is for the 'average' household in similar figures I can find. This includes retired people, predominantly non-immigrants, who as a group are net costs, rather than contributors to the state, as they use healthcare and are not economically active. It also means you probably only have to earn £20000 to be a net contributor if there is another person earning money in your house.

    I would remind people that causation and correlation are different. An increase in immigrants and an increase in pressures on the health service does not mean the two factors are linked in any way.

    Housing is more complicated as there is a problem with new development (often as far as I can see a combination of NIMBYism, and the fact that developers have no real interest in providing for public services, at their own expense, when they build new residential developments).
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,815
    Alex Salmond on R4 talking about a "quadlock" (not sure if spelling is right). Basically he is pushing for the right for one of the constituent countries making up the UK to have a veto should we vote out.

    I still think we won't get a referendum - the Conservatives will have torn themselves apart by then over this. Cameron will have to walk and any new leader will concentrate on winning election 2020. Remember folks, you heard it here first :wink:

    BTW, is it too soon for an "Election 2020" thread?
    A vote of non confidence and it could come much quicker than that.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    mamba80 wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    I'm unclear what the 'immigration crisis' is.
    The country gains a net benefit from the migrants. This increases government revenues that result from their economic activity and more than compensates for the services they use.
    Pressure on services is due to the government failing to invest more in these services. Fewer immigrants would mean that there are fewer tax payers to pay for those services.

    With an extra 5m added to our population in the last 15years and net migration at a record 300k plus per year, you dont need a crystal ball to see that the pressure on schools roads, health services, housing is immense and is going only one way.
    .

    Stop f*cking then.

    Import already qualified talent from abroad. Removes the pressures of having to bring kids up, school, hospital costs for giving birth etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    pblakeney wrote:
    I had a thought this morning.
    Referendums usually have both sides arguing their point of view.
    Who is going to debate for the Out campaign?
    It won't be the Tories.
    Nor Labour.
    Or SNP, Liberals, Greens, etc, etc

    So. Are we going to get one UKIP MP arguing to pull out whilst everyone else argues to stay in?

    Tories will be trickier, since there's a fairly chunky pro-exit minority within the party, and they've got precedent for disobeying whips.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    mamba80 wrote:
    taon24 wrote:
    I'm unclear what the 'immigration crisis' is.
    The country gains a net benefit from the migrants. This increases government revenues that result from their economic activity and more than compensates for the services they use.
    Pressure on services is due to the government failing to invest more in these services. Fewer immigrants would mean that there are fewer tax payers to pay for those services.

    With an extra 5m added to our population in the last 15years and net migration at a record 300k plus per year, you dont need a crystal ball to see that the pressure on schools roads, health services, housing is immense and is going only one way.
    .

    Stop f*cking then.

    Import already qualified talent from abroad. Removes the pressures of having to bring kids up, school, hospital costs for giving birth etc.

    don't be obtuse, we "import" anyone, regardless of talent, means or dependants, future or current - does not relive pressure on housing or health services
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,815
    Tories will be trickier, since there's a fairly chunky pro-exit minority within the party, and they've got precedent for disobeying whips.
    Hence my post at the top of this page.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    pblakeney wrote:
    Tories will be trickier, since there's a fairly chunky pro-exit minority within the party, and they've got precedent for disobeying whips.
    Hence my post at the top of this page.

    They'll most likely not campaign on it formally, and let individual MPs campaign in their own constituencies.
  • BelgianBeerGeekBelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,230
    pblakeney wrote:
    Tories will be trickier, since there's a fairly chunky pro-exit minority within the party, and they've got precedent for disobeying whips.
    Hence my post at the top of this page.

    They'll most likely not campaign on it formally, and let individual MPs campaign in their own constituencies.
    I seriously doubt that. Two points:
    1. The Conservative party are very centrally controlled. To be a good Tory, you must follow the party whip, and dissent is strongly discouraged.
    2. The Conservatives have a large number of new boys and girls. As in 1 above, you don't want them going off at a tangent. They will also, like the blue sheep they are, wish to be directed by central office.

    Even if your local MP appears to be campaigning on their own, you can bet the farm that they are all doing as they are told. Which is where the fun lies.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 2,240
    It's interesting that Cameron has hit the floor running on Europe.

    He has wisely realised that they need to put the whole issue to bed as quickly as possible as it's going to get messy whatever the outcome. He hopes to have a good clear run at the next GE with the Eu question well and truly behind them. It's haunted the party for decades and is the one topic where the whips do get ignored.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    morstar wrote:
    It's interesting that Cameron has hit the floor running on Europe.

    He has wisely realised that they need to put the whole issue to bed as quickly as possible as it's going to get messy whatever the outcome. He hopes to have a good clear run at the next GE with the Eu question well and truly behind them. It's haunted the party for decades and is the one topic where the whips do get ignored.

    I'd say that's more a factor of having essentially ignored Europe thus far, and hasn't built up much in the way of relationships. Joining the far right alliance as opposed to the centre right has really not helped much. (Conservatives are part of the European Conservatives and Reformistsalliance which has plenty of far right (racist) parties within it and none of the other major centre right parties from the important nations)

    So he's got a lot of ground to make up because what he's asking for is very difficult. He wants to stay in, so he needs to come away with something substantial enough to persuade the sceptics (especially in his own party) to back the status quo.

    Given the reaction thus far, that's not going to be easy.
    The French Foreign minister yesterday on French radio;
    Fabius told the France Inter radio station: “I find this process quite dangerous … The British population has got used to being repeatedly told: ‘Europe is a bad thing’, and the day they are asked to decide, the risk is that they will say well you told us: ‘Europe is a bad thing’.”

    The foreign minister wheeled out his favourite sporting metaphor when he said: “One can’t join a football club and decide in the middle of the match we are now going to play rugby.”

    A lot of what he will be asking for requires reform to the Lisbon agreement, which will ultimately need to be ratified by all countries - some constitutionally would require a referendum. I would suggest those countries probably won't go through the rigmarole of a referendum on EU just to please a leader of a country that at best is seen as having an ambivalent attitude towards Europe, at worst, openly hostile.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Or
    We turn up to play football and the referee changes the rules to rugby halfway through the game.

    I see, I get the picture. Looser integration needs a treaty change but it appears closer integration doesn't.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itain.html

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... id-cameron
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    That's willful misinterpretation.

    It says explicitly in the article within the Eurozone (of which UK is not a member) France & Germany have agreed to work more closely and towards further integration within the confines of the Lisbon treaty.

    What some of what Cameron is asking for requires a change in the treaty.

    Huge difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.